Comey being grilled live now

a reply to: Krazysh0t

She didn't lie. She said she would accept the FBI's decision. It was no secret by then that they hadn't found anything and they were not going forward with an indictment. Like I said, legal chatter in DC was that they could not find any intent to share classified materials with people she shouldn't have.
So Lynch didn't lie. She just let the FBI make the announcement.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: digital01anarchy

The chatter in the month or so before that announcement said as much. I linked a few opinion pieces from D.C. lawyers saying why they wouldn't indict. All going to intent. But I was all alone in my viewpoint and I was "educated" rather quickly how an indictment was coming with pages and pages of section 18 sources and subsections in regards to handling classified information. Gen. Petraeus was brought up numerous times as he still is. That was before Bill spoke to Loretta Lynch by several weeks. It's all on here.

Mens rea is usually ignored in cases like these and a judge will throw it out of court faster then the time it took to bring the subject up. I have heard this line of reasoning and the congressional oversite committee even stated what i said was true regarding mens rea.

Regardless of proving intent which was proven in 2 hours by a citizen using networktools and logic and posted on reddit she mishandled classified information and destroyed evidence. Her intent on harming the nation isnt required however we can say her personal aid huma having family memebers who have links to terrorism having access to the material is treasonous as huma doesnt have any clearance and isnt subject to anylaw regarding the talking about the information.

No protocols had been used with regards to the classified information which would be a requirement for information to be stored correctly for crying out loud the system admin didnt even use active directory.So in no way was CIA implemented on her server.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Krazysh0t

She didn't lie.

CONGRESSMAN: A few months ago Hillary Clinton in talking about her emails claimed that you said, and I quote, 'My answers were truthful.' PolitiFact, by the way, gave this claim a 'pants on fire' rating. Did you say that she was telling the truth with respect to her email claims?

JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: I did not. I'd never say that about anybody. Our business is never to decide whether someone is -- whether we believe someone -- our business is always to decide what evidence do we have that would convince us not to believe that person. It's an odd way to look at the world, but it's how investigators looks at the world.

Politico

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Krazysh0t

She didn't lie. She said she would accept the FBI's decision. It was no secret by then that they hadn't found anything and they were not going forward with an indictment. Like I said, legal chatter in DC was that they could not find any intent to share classified materials with people she shouldn't have.
So Lynch didn't lie. She just let the FBI make the announcement.

How do you prove intent when immunity is granted to 6 people directly involved in the investigation by her justice department? 2 people plead the 5th in response to questions by a congressional oversite committee? Pleading the 5th is an admission of guilt but since they have immunity they can not prosecute them? Why? Obviously its so they can plead the 5th and obstruct an internal investigation by the overstie committee.

Sorry double post

a reply to: Grambler

Its amazing that no one on "Team Clinton" will touch any of your posts. Why would that be?

Maybe because you are saying the truth.

snrRog

originally posted by: Sillyolme

Like I said, legal chatter in DC was that they could not find any intent to share classified materials with people she shouldn't have.

See that's just the thing with this "intent" nonsense.

Yes, on the misdemeanor she should face concerning the sharing of classified information, proof of intent to harm or deceive the government is required... but not on the more serious felony she should be charged with concerning the storage and removal of classified documents.

a reply to: Bone75

Which statue are you referring to?

If I am not mistaken, both acts (removing and storing) have to of occurred to be potentially liable of a violation.

originally posted by: snrRog
a reply to: Grambler

Its amazing that no one on "Team Clinton" will touch any of your posts. Why would that be?

Maybe because you are saying the truth.

snrRog

Thanks for noticing.

I have no problem with people thinking that Hillary didn''t do anything illegal, or that the story is overblown. But when you take the time to go through all of these documents and interviews, and peoples response is just "Nuh uh, because Comey said so!" it is frustrating.

But I don't care, I will continue to search for myself, and hopefully other people find that worthwhile.

originally posted by: snrRog
a reply to: Grambler

Its amazing that no one on "Team Clinton" will touch any of your posts. Why would that be?

Maybe because you are saying the truth.

snrRog

I don't know why no one has responded to their post, but I can say that it does take Comey's statements out of context.

So the next time she opens her mouth and says "Comey says I didn't commit a crime" people need to say "Yeah, and he also says you should still be punished and lose your job!"

That is not what Comey said. He said that if she was still employed by the government, there would be an investigation and a subsequent consequence that varied in range from a reprimand to termination of employment.

All of the people saying this was a witch hunt, etc. did you watch the hearing? Did you see Comey say this? Well you are all so eager to take his recommendation on prosecution, so I assume you will take his recommendation about her being punished and losing her job, right?

How can she lose her job when she is not employed by the government?

a reply to: introvert

Thats fair and you are right. He said had she been employed by the government or FBI she would have been punished and perhaps lose her job.

I will admit I was extrapolating that because she was an employee of we the people of America when she did these things, and is seeking to be our employee again as President of the US, we should take Comeys advice and punish her internally by not voting for her.

Also, that was one small point of a four point post. Care to address any of the rest of it?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jhn7537

Great. Write a novel. That's not what happened here. She used a private system because it was convenient. She never got hacked. The state did.
End of story.

Yea she did, stop trying to Correct The Record.

We're calling it Control The Record now.

a reply to: Grambler

Also, that was one small point of a four point post. Care to address any of the rest of it?

Can you be specific about what you would like me to comment on?

Thanks.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Also, that was one small point of a four point post. Care to address any of the rest of it?

Can you be specific about what you would like me to comment on?

Thanks.

No. I just wondered if you wanted to comment on anything else, nothing in particular. Did anything stick out as incorrect or not make sense, or did y9u agree with anything.

I am not trying to be a jerk, I am open to criticism. I just noticed that you read my thread, and you were right that my quote wasn't an exact quote of Comey (although I feel my interpretation was fair), so I wondered if you had any thoughts on the post.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Don't tell me what to do.

...

a reply to: introvert
The investigation was never going to lead to an indictment, supporters and opponents on ATS both knew this and have admitted it to be the likely case from day one. To the exact same extent, even if there were an indictment and prosecution, each also knew and admitted she and all involved would likely get pardoned. That being said, how the investigation was conducted, whether purposefully or by incompetence, and its ending result, is a moot point of the purest form. The People are powerless in that regard, and we know and admit it.

That is not what Comey said. He said that if she was still employed by the government, there would be an investigation and a subsequent consequence that varied in range from a reprimand to termination of employment.

This is the point that ought to be focused on.

How can she lose her job when she is not employed by the government?

She cant, and it's the wrong question to be asking.

How can We The People hire her for such an important job as POTUS when she would have been facing serious reprimand and potential of dismissal from her previous job -- twice removed from that which she is currently seeking?

a reply to: coffeetalk

Bingo!! you nailed it.

We knew that in the end no one of significance would ever see real punishment. But we can still try to hold people accountable with our votes, and in other ways.

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

Until we get the establishment out of positions of power, nothing will change. This story shows a litany of people that are establishment that should not be put in positions of power.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jhn7537

Great. Write a novel. That's not what happened here. She used a private system because it was convenient. She never got hacked. The state did.
End of story.

My bad for putting thought into my previous response, I'll make sure to use a "one word" response next time... Still trying to learn how to post around here, I hate being so new here...

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I was talking about Loretta Lynch dear.